Re: rdfs:domain and refs:range in

We wanted to leave the flexibility to evolve the schemas incrementally
without breaking "promises" expressed with RDFS's range/domain, and without
adding lots of artificial supertypes to group different types within a
common type.


On 22 Nov 2016 06:12, "Alex Prut" <> wrote:

> Hello all,
> I'm looking at the raw ontology implementation and
> documentation, but I can’t find a reason why the ontology was implemented
> using the schema:domainIncludes and schema:rangeIncludes properties,
> instead of the standard RDFs rdfs:domain and rdfs:range?
> Thanks,
> Alexandru Pruteanu (M.Sc. in Computer Science at University of Udine)

Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2016 14:25:44 UTC